- Original Message -
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> El Thu, 10 Oct 2013 05:35:18 -0400 (EDT)
> Bohuslav Kabrda escribió:
> > - Original Message -
> > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > > Hash: SHA1
> > >
> > > On Wed, 09 Oct 2013 14:07:12 +0200
> > >
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 5:34 AM, Jan Zelený wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> as you might remember I issued a call for RFEs on this list during the spring.
> The participation was not bad at all, we have collected so many data that it
> took us several months to discuss and process it.
>
> Now I have som
You should not *care* how many packages have the dependency, only that
*any* package has the dependency, and you have a report from RPM itself of
what those packages are. Why do you need to bother to count them and add
yet another set of superfluous database entries to corrupt and try to keep
recon
Hi,
On Sun, 2013-10-13 at 20:27 -0300, Reartes Guillermo wrote:
> Failed:
> usbmuxd.x86_64 0:1.0.8-8.fc20
>
> Complete!
This issue is a known one. It has been fixed with 1.0.8-10. Please refer
to this update for more information:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18862/usbmux
Hi,
I recently installed F20b TC2 on a physical host and performed a yum update.
There was one failed package and a couple of errors at the 'cleaning' phase.
Output of 'yum update' (truncated)
[...TRUNCATED...]
Cleanup: 1:java-1.7.0-openjdk-1.7.0.60-2.4.2.1.fc20.x86_64
On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 22:35:08 +0100
"Richard W.M. Jones" wrote:
> Ah, easy when you know where! So it looks like 3 days, although some
> have spent a bit longer, eg:
>
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-18415/libguestfs-1.23.25-1.fc20
>
> which seems to have spent 5 days in t
On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 02:05:08PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 20:21:47 +0100
> "Richard W.M. Jones" wrote:
>
> >
> > ... and how do I find out? I checked over all recent messages on
> > devel-announce, but it doesn't seem to be mentioned.
> >
> > Also, automatic obsoleting
Hi All,
I'm very happy to announce the third release (r3) of my Fedora 19 ARM
remix images for Allwinner A10, A10s, A13 and A20 based devices. This
release is based on the official Fedora 19 Final for ARM images,
with u-boot and kernel(s) from the linux-sunxi project:
http://linux-sunxi.org/
New
On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 20:21:47 +0100
"Richard W.M. Jones" wrote:
>
> ... and how do I find out? I checked over all recent messages on
> devel-announce, but it doesn't seem to be mentioned.
>
> Also, automatic obsoleting of builds is a bit of a mixed blessing. On
> the one hand it's useful to ob
Reindl,
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 12:15:02PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> i get somehow tired to report bugs for several packages,
> refresh them at each release because maintainers
> ignore guidelines all the time
>
> some of them responded and fixed their packages
> some insist to ignore them
t
Hi,
some time ago several bugs regarding aarch64 support were opened.
According to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=922257#c1
most of the bugs seem to be wrong. Nevertheless, there was no status
update at least in the bugs created for my packages. Should the bugs
just be closed as inva
On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 08:21:47PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> ... and how do I find out? I checked over all recent messages on
> devel-announce, but it doesn't seem to be mentioned.
My expirience tell me, that you have to wait seven days in updatest-testing
before you can push your packa
... and how do I find out? I checked over all recent messages on
devel-announce, but it doesn't seem to be mentioned.
Also, automatic obsoleting of builds is a bit of a mixed blessing. On
the one hand it's useful to obsolete an older build when a newer one
comes along. On the other hand it pre
Hallo Dave,
On Sat, 28 Sep 2013, Dave Johansen wrote:
> I just noticed that the boost141 package had been previously available in
> Fedora, but it has since been removed (
> https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5291 ). I'm not familiar with the
> recent changes in Boost, but is the API stable e
Timothy Ward wrote:
> File dependancy should be counted like ref counting in gtk when a
> program is added to the computer a reference count and a keyname is
> added to a double-linked list in a system file then when the program is
> removed the reference count for that dependent file is reduced b
Compose started at Sun Oct 13 08:15:03 UTC 2013
Broken deps for i386
--
[OpenEXR_CTL]
OpenEXR_CTL-1.0.1-16.fc20.i686 requires libImath.so.6
OpenEXR_CTL-1.0.1-16.fc20.i686 requires libIlmThread.so.6
OpenEXR_CTL-1.0.1-16
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 04:13:58PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>>
>> If two packages 'provide' the same dependency, isn't yum supposed to
>> pick the one with the shortest name?
>>
>> Anyway, 'BuildRequires: kernel' in Rawhide (on k
Compose started at Sun Oct 13 09:15:02 UTC 2013
Broken deps for armhfp
--
[blueman]
blueman-1.23-7.fc20.armv7hl requires obex-data-server >= 0:0.4.3
blueman-1.23-7.fc20.armv7hl requires gvfs-obexftp
[bwm-ng]
bwm-ng-0.6
Hi maintainers,
On 01/05/2012 08:56 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> (d) Move the whole thing (back) to RPM Fusion (where it originally was, before
> we started needing xine-lib for Amarok and Phonon, which both no longer
> use it). It would go to the Free section, of course.
> My proposal is to
Dear list readers!
Zabbix 1.4 is no longer maintained upstream as of 2011. Therefore I'd
like to mark the EL5 branch of zabbix as retired. EL5 users willing to
upgrade can use Zabbix 2.0, which ships as zabbix20 in EL5 and 6.
EL6 ships version 1.8 as "zabbix". I plan to retire that one too, o
20 matches
Mail list logo
